Legal Opinion
Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 18, 1986No. 85-4131PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION *
2Per curiam
The district court denied appellant Alaska Limestone Corporation’s motion for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. Alaska Limestone claims that the failure of the district court clerk to send notice of the entry of judgment to one of its two counsel of record justified a grant of its untimely motion. We affirm.
FACTS
On April 12, 1985, the district court granted summary judgment against Alaska Limestone on the merits of the underlying case. The summary judgment motion had been pending since August 1983. The district court clerk sent a copy of the judgment to the…
3Cases cited16 opinions
- Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization ServiceSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Theodore R. Gooch v. Skelly Oil Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1974
- Jacqueline Selph v. Council of the City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1979
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by55 opinions
- Marx v. Loral Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Dale A. Price, Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellant v. Thomas Seydel and Nalani Seydel, Husband and Wife, Defendants-Cross-Claimants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1992
- Clarissa Marsh v. Gloria RichardsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1989
- Consolidated Freightways Corporation Of Delaware v. LarsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Belfance v. Black River Petroleum, Inc. (In Re Hess)Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit · 1997
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.